I’m no accountant, but I have to imagine when he’s talking about “value” it’s not exact loss of sales, but something more like “projected sales for the next 10 years” or something.
There’s no way Twitter, a company that was overvalued at $43 billion, was also making $40billion a year in advertising sales.
He seems to be saying that the market value of Twitter is $40B less than what it was before stuff happened. “Value destruction” tends to be applied to “stock” (like market cap) rather than “flow” (like revenues).
He’s basically saying Twitter is worth $4B, given that he paid $44B and seems to be saying $40B of values was destroyed.
Losing $40B in less than a year is, uh, remarkable.
I’m no accountant, but I have to imagine when he’s talking about “value” it’s not exact loss of sales, but something more like “projected sales for the next 10 years” or something.
There’s no way Twitter, a company that was overvalued at $43 billion, was also making $40billion a year in advertising sales.
He needs to learn that just because he was stupid enough to buy it for $44B that doesn’t mean it was ever worth $44B.
He seems to be saying that the market value of Twitter is $40B less than what it was before stuff happened. “Value destruction” tends to be applied to “stock” (like market cap) rather than “flow” (like revenues).
He’s basically saying Twitter is worth $4B, given that he paid $44B and seems to be saying $40B of values was destroyed.
Losing $40B in less than a year is, uh, remarkable.